Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by [PCE]el_Prez, Dec 15, 2009.
Prez died of bird flu shortly after this post was made.
This thread is a good example of how much people know about wildlife. Yes. There are doves outside of the city. And they are perfectly edible.
And since when was it worse to shoot a bird for eating than killing any domesticated animal on an industrial level for the same purpose?
Actually, the dove meat is very lean and the crust is made out of bisquick, milk, and flour. The most fattening thing in the whole pie is the cream of celary soup wich has like 5 grams of fat.
hehe, As an American, its be tough to be offended by cholesterol.
My buddy knows this dude that owns a bunch of farm l and outside phx. His farm is hope to a couple thousand dove... they eat more than 100,000 dollars of cattle feed every year.
hehe, true. In my case I got the best of both worlds. The dove lived on a farm so it was easy to find them and shoot them. At the same time they were pests to the farmer so he was glad to have anyone come and get them. Finally - the dove are all GIGANTIC becuase they eat cornmeal all day. Similar to the difference between grain fed and grass fed cattle. More mass, better quality meat, and EASY pickens when you can go right to the HOME of a couple thousand birds
I think that can be called a plague.
Prez, looking forward to your rattlesnake recipe next.
Remember that this kind of meal would only be a beutiful dream in a post apocalyptic world.
You prefer grass fed beef? What are you some hippie that thinks that cows deserve a happy natural life? Besides who made you an expert?
If you disagree and think I'm wrong maybe you should put time into forming a sentence.
Depends. Personally, I thought it was a well known fact that cows have eaten grass for many many many many many centuries and are thus basically adapted to eating grass.
Feeding them grain (>90% made out of corn) is just... well... a somewhat human thing to try out, no? You should read up on what corn does to a cow's stomach. Seriously. Not that it'll change you, I'm sure it won't, but it's still educational.
grass fed beef has up to 50% less fat, it has less saturated fats and it has a lot more omega 3.
Wondering whether I am an expert on this subject is kind of lame seeing you're no expert either.
I'm not a hippy either. I would like to make a more bold remark to this... assumption you made, but seeing you are a mod, I'll pass.
It's really easy to determine what is better, grass fed or grain fed: in the United States more than 90% of all cattle is grain fed. Now google 'obesity' and 'Americans'.
But true: I'm no expert. I always advise people to do exactly the opposite of what I say. That way I get to laugh.
That's fine and all, but what does it have to do with the quality of the meat? (Rhetorical question - answer: Nothing.)
So long as we're talking about a nicely marbled piece of meat, the more fat the merrier. Healthy ≠ Good quality. Sometimes, healthy stuff can be awesome, like cows that have roamed "free" and all - but if something's healthy is in no way an argument regarding it's quality, and what el_Prez was talking about was "better quality meat", not "veggie-ethical correctness".
Still, nothing to do with the quality of the meat.
That said, I dunno - the quality of meat depends on many different factors and there's plenty of very good meat to go around .
"Basically" adapted to eating grass eh? Very scientific research you've done.
Yes, thank you for the lesson. Of course, I did grow up 5 miles from rural Indiana cornfields as far as the eye can see, so although I apreciate the free effort your not telling me anything i don't know.
Has it ever occurred to you that other people might PREFER fattier meat. Why do you think the majority of cattle are fed corn feed as opposed to grass?
I never claimed to be. But i know I've had grass fed meat and corn fed meat and I prefer the latter. So do most Americans. Your attempt to disagree with me seemed more like a troll than an a reply to dispute a claim.
Don't let that hold you back. Lets hear it. I don't give a shit if poeple think i'm a dipshit redneck. I like to experience life from multiple prospectives. On a random weekend I could be in south phoenix at a hip hop club watching my friend (who's a small time rapper) perform on Sat night, and be drinking PBR in can, shooting dove on Sun morning. I could be with my girlfriend at fancy dinner, or at home with my dad getting stoned watching HBO. If you want to label me - go ahead. Want to say - what a redneck, that pie shit looks gross.... that's fine too. But I couldn't give a shit. I'm about to spark a J, and have some leftover pot pie for dinner.
Americans are obese because they have no self control. Not because the food they eat is fattening. Look at Kobe Beef. Considered the finest cuts in the world. The marbling is incredible.... and it costs a pretty penny too.
You claim grass fed is "better" yet all you've done is shown that it has less fat. So what, that's common knowledge. The REASON the majority of American cows are fed corn is to make them fatter. We're EATING these fuckers not riding them. Who gives a shit if the cows would die from massive corornary attacks because of overeating. Fuck em. It's their job to eat until their dead. That aspect hasn't changed in the worlds history.
Wait... did you just read past it or something:
grass fed beef contains up to 50% less fat, less saturated fats and more omega 3's. That means the quality is better.
Taste ≠ quality.
The only reason farmers get into feedlot beef is because it is way more profitable.
And it's tricky shit: you can't just expect a cow to eat and digest corn. You have to teach it and while having it eat all the corn, you have to add antibiotics to its diet. It also raises a cow's level of acid in the stomachs. This is something unnatural for a cow (unlike for humans): cows have pH neutral stomachs. This means that simple acidosis is a serious sickness for a cow.
So your marbled piece of feedlot beef is better, yes?
Sure it is: for all the antibiotic-resistant bacteria that are building up in your system, it is.
And the acidic stomachs of your grain fed cattle nurtures E. coli bacteria, which in turn kill people!
And don't forget that your marbled steak is marbled because it's clogged with saturated fats which will in turn clog up your system.
Seriously: this is an asinine discussion. Raed up on the subject or something before making such naive statements, Luke.
If you want a scienific report on the matter, maybe you shouldn't ask me to explain, but rather google it or something? Just saying.
I think it's the other way around. I just saw a remark that I found to be incorrect and pointed it out. No way did I troll.
Alsoplustoo: I'm out of this thread. I just made a remark, kind of harmless really, sjeez, I'm not here to convert you. I just don't care enough about these things, to defend them to death. You win. Bye!
lol, but no offense, what did I say earlier? Food brings out interesting things in people.
"Food" fights over scarcity, choices, and whether some food is holy or not has lead to wars, religious conflicts, and new religions.
Personally, I think a lot of North Americans(and some British) are rather timid in their food choices. I personally never understood the idea that if one wants to eat an animal, one would only eat certain parts and throw away the rest. The pursuit of "safer" foods also seem to triumphs over all common sense in North America. I've read news reports about how California organic farmers are now required build fences and bunkers and even cut down all the vegetation around their farms and use lots of pesticides because some rich ladies forgot to wash their salad.
Another thing that bothers me is the idea that some people already rejected certain foods even though they never tried it. If you have allergies, fine. But if you are not trying something because the media/advertising has given you some kind of weird idea that certain foods are "gross", what does that really say about you?
As for beef, I would love to get my hands on mishima or matsusaka beef.
Now that's some comfort food right there. Looks delicious. Have you ever tried cutting the meat into strips, then breading and deep-frying it? Dove chicken-fingers. That'd make an awesome super bowl dish.
In my sleep-deprived vision, this thread's title appeared as "How to make love to a pot plant" for a second or two.
I find this quote to be extremely offensive. Rats are sweet rodents.
No. It just doesn't. By that logic, a glass of water would have a higher and more exquisite quality than a glass of fine champagne.
"Because alcohol is more unhealthy than water, and may lead to depleted liver, and domestic abuse, and everything, and the big evil alcohol conglomerates are taking over the world, and it's fattening too!, while water is totally natural and healthy!" Do you recognize the structure of the arguments? Your main arguments regarding the issue of the quality of meat seems to be 1) human health and 2) animal health/suffering.
Your arguments are nullified by this tenderloin: (Put in a spoiler in case you seriously feel bad when viewing such beautiful creation.)
Nobody with a sane mind and an adequate understanding of the word 'quality' when discussing meat would call that "low quality meat".
I think the whole problem could be solved if you'd either use another word, or accept the fact that the vast majority of people have another definition of the word 'quality' than you. It seems to me that this is all just a language thing. Water is not of higher quality than fine champagne.
Sucks to be the cow - really, I wouldn't want to be that cow. Still - I can't believe you're not getting this - the ethical aspects have nothing to do with the quality of the meat. Tenderness does. Meatiness does. Texture does. General high grade superiority does. Taste does. And what constitutes as "high quality meat" is connected to subjective human values, but there is still an extremely established human consensus regarding what constitutes as high quality meat and low quality meat. I could go to any serious and professional butcher in the world and ask for some "high quality meat", and my definition of high quality meat is what I would get.
Your view obviously differs from that, and you say that the quality of meat should be determined by the health and ethical aspects of it. That's a language coup advocating change, not an argument regarding what is actually incorporated into the term today, and I think you would benefit from understanding that. If I want "beer" to mean "soy milk", and would come with arguments such as that "soy milk is healthier than beer and should hence be called beer", I would be missing out on something very fundamental.
Same things again. Effects such as spreading E coli, dead cows, dead people, saturated fats - not pertaining to quality. (So long as a specific meat in question is not ridden with disease.) You might as well ramble some arguments about what music you like or which movies are good, trying to prove the low quality of tenderloin.
Urk. I totally agree that it's an asinine discussion. But instead of me "raeding up on the subject", perhaps you should buy a dictionary? (Then you could look up "raed" and explain it to me, for I recognize no such word...) Or, we could just both acknowledge that arguments along the lines of "Read up on the subject or something" are extremely immature, and that regardless of how we feel about this topic we should be able to keep a civil debate without resorting to ad hominem arguments. (I've thrown in some childish ad hominem arguments myself as a response to your rhetorics, demonstrating how they harm the discussion, since you insisted to bring them up.)
Lukester, I don't quite understand what your problem is with alec's definition. Makes perfect sense to me. Water is better for you on a daily basis then champagne. Are you possibly somehow connected with the industrial meat producing industry?
Personally, I'm an on & off vegetarian, although even during my vegy-periods I do eat fish and still claim to be a vegetarian of some type. I just need to eat some 'easy' protein-filled food.
The type of meat I miss most when I'm on a vegetarian hiatus is game meat, especially elk and reindeer although I don't even eat it that much. 'Normal' meat just doesn't have the taste and I don't really miss it, I mostly eat it for reasons of cost and convenience.
Edit. On topic, that dove thing looks nice. I guess a dove qualifies as game meat when grown in good conditions with good nutrition etc.
Hehe, no, I just like meat a lot . But I've also had a job as an executive chef. Not in any star restaurant or anything, but still. I've also worked with a guy who was the executive chef of the Nobel dinner for 10 years in a row - he who composed the meals, presented them to the King, and was the highest boss of the countless chefs during production (I was his right-hand-man during a public cooking event in central Stockholm). At age five, I took my first surprise blind alcohol test (without drinking ) and successfully identified a Tokaj. (I had smelled it a couple of days before at home, and was then at a big family gathering. My grandfather came up to me and said "Do you know what this is, boy?" - I smelled it, and said that "It smells like Tokaj", to the amazement of all the relatives who didn't know I had just experienced it the other day. Not so much impressive as a fun lil story, but still.) Mainly, I have nurtured a life long passion for the culinary arts, and were I to invite a Guide Michelin jury to my home, I am certain that the food I could serve would easily give me at least one star in their grading papers. (Not so much the locale of my abode, but the food - my god, the food!) Furthermore, as said, I'm not very enthusiastic about being told to "Raed up on the subject". (<- Instant classic, IMO).
I don't want it to sound like I don't care about what I eat at all, for I do. I usually buy Swedish meat (whenever able), preferrably locally produced. I agree that origin can also be a part of the percieved quality of a meat - just like origin can be a part of the percieved quality of a sublimated wine. I like Italian wines. But to say that "all Italian wines are quality wines", or that "all quality wines are Italian wines" is wrong. (You know, what with a cow being an animal, but "an animal" not being a cow by necessity).
"I think corn fed meat is ethically wrong" is fine, though I don't have that view myself, but "water is of higher quality than champagne because it's more healthy" is just an unnecessary and stupefying use of the term 'quality'. It is either stupid, or deviously designed to riot against the conventional definition of quality. If it is designed to riot against the conventional definition of quality, it should be noted so, or it is naught but a troll. It is like saying a battered Vespa is a vehicle of higher quality than a brand new Mercedes because the battered Vespa is more kind to the environment. I'm sure that would get cheers at a hippy rally, getting the crowd to cheer "Mercedes is producing cars of inferior quality and worse performance than battered Vespas!", but that wouldn't mean that the cheering crowd would know anything about the human consensus regarding the meaning of quality when it comes to motor vehicles. And if the cheering crowd would yell to the Mercedes CEO (let's say he just walked by), that "You, sir, should go home and read up on cars before you try to make a statement about what makes a car qualitative!" (there may be a parallel in this thread somewhere...), that would just be insanely dumb.
So, what I do not agree with is the notion that healthyness and 'ethical' aspects constitute the two elements that form 'quality' when it comes to meat, which I thought I was pretty clear on. I much enjoy eating animals that felt good during their lifetime since it contributes to the experience to know that the meat came about in a more 'natural' way. But when judging the quality of the meat, one should only look to the final product, and not how much unethicalness was achieved while producing it. Claiming that lab-grown meat is of higher quality than regular tenderloin, since lab-grown meat has not been connected to an entity with a perception (and without having tasted lab-grown meat), would be another example of how to use the term 'quality' in a stupefying way - like when judging the quality of a car, one should look to factors pertaining to the cars performance. Lab-grown meat has even less fat than grass-fed meat. Lab-meat will probably become perfectly edible, and potentially even very good, at some point in human history, as well as readily available in grocery stores - but to try and conclude that the lab-meat of today is of higher quality than regular tenderloin, with the arguments that lab-meat is healthier and more ethical, is dumb.
I don't have anything against veggies. Eat what you want, I say, and plan your diet in whatever way makes you happy. I don't have anything against debates on what 'ethics' really are; or how we could possibly even begin to define such a thing as ethics or virtue. Furthermore, I can only imagine how horrible I would feel if I actually viewed meat as murder, with the vast majority of earths human population walking around with the assumption that it's a-ok. But, that is not the (side) topic here.
Well Water and Champagne are a bad example because champane is acohol. Also, there's really NOTHING (no drink at least) better for you than water. But how bout an Avacado vs. other fruit. Avacado has more fat, if you eat a lot of it it can be very unhealthy. Compare that to an apple. Apples have far less calories, it would be much healthier to eat 5 apples than 5 avacadoes. But what if you were starving and had to choose one? Avacado is the better choice. It's also much more expensive than apples because they are more scarce. It's ridiculous to say that one thing is "BETTER" just becuase it differs in nutritional value.
Dove is a game bird in just about every area it lives in the U.S. Hell, even in the city where it's illegal to shoot them - they find their ways into pot pies....